Population density will be greatly affected by ease of interstellar travel. If starships are readily accessible and require minimal upkeep then people will spread far and wide, leaving little to be contested apart from players' own egos. On the other hand, if interstellar travel has a sufficiently high barrier of entry, then lower-class smugglers, outlaws, and bandits will rise wherever there exists honest industry.

I would personally be very interested in seeing that sort of class struggle—how the lawless contend with the lawful, the established wealthy vs. the aspiring vagabond. It would bring life and character to the otherwise socially vapid void.

TunaOfSpace, SpaceEngineer has already stated that a fully capable basic starship will be available at the very beginning to all players. As soon as you start the game, you are able to begin exploring other stars. You won't be able to go to the far side of the galaxy right away, but you could begin exploring the solar neighborhood.

It won't be that type of game. Those kinds of classes and that kind of society won't exist, at least not in the first game. Though I suspect that some players will create RPs among themselves to create that added element.

Regarding a later MMORPG, those types of things could possibly exist in the game. It's way too early to know, it's all just speculation at this point.

There are times when this is the only reason I play a game. In SE, I would generally be more interested in exploring, but I become territorial very quickly and would probably attack anyone who stayed in a system I "claimed" for too long. It is not that I want to make other people's lives harder, but I like destruction. I also suspect that many other people are like me, so the fact that a chance meeting is highly unlikely is good, because I, and many others, would probably shoot anyone they didn't know if they were close enough (same planet or moon system).

If, however, there were "arenas" for people like me to test their combat skills/understanding of orbits, I think I would probably not attack anyone. The arenas could basically be war systems where anyone who wants to battle can go, or two parties could arrange a meeting in space to test their skills.

I think the idea is every player when they start would have access to things like 3D printers/nanofabricators to make repairs to their ships and create what they need including advancing their ship. Perhaps there would be a tech tree of sorts, but to encourage more cooperative behavior advancing your tech tree could be sped up by joint research projects, founding colonies with people, and working with people. In such a game fighting would be possible but it would be counterproductive towards exploration and advancement.

In such a game fighting would be possible but it would be counterproductive towards exploration and advancement.

A good point. Armed conflict is rarely productive, and in this sort of environment even less so. With so much space available there's little reason to bicker over who gets what unless a decisive victory is evident from the start. How relations unfold will ultimately on the type of playerbase the game attracts.

Keep in mind the scale of the universe. Even just within the Sol system there is a vast amount of space, more than enough room for everyone, so the only reason to attack anyone would be just for sport or bloodlust, and given how much expense would be incurred by attacking someone it would probably not be worth it to attack a random player when there is nothing to gain by doing so. So I foresee most combat being between consenting players who know each other, or perhaps in situations where there is actually something of value at stake (which would probably be quite rare given the size of the universe).

You are ignoring the single biggest factor of a video game though: Is it fun? If it is fun for people to do that, and they are able to do it in the game, then it will be done.

In the past, on Russian forum, we were discussing a lot about the fight, but it seems it didn't result in any concrete conceptions of that and we decided to abandon the idea completely, till better times.

I was thinking about the way to prevent people from going for a war and I guess there is a way to do it without completely forbidding something like weapons and hostile contact. Most of the game developers that wish to balance these issues, usually apply less powerful weaponry and stronger defenses, making space battle more predictable and less punishing. That is because the people who played the game longer, should feel that they didn't do that in vain, and their ability to fight is improved to some extent, because that is one of the goals in-game.

On the other hand, if we don't like the idea of war itself, we should probably do the opposite - make war into a cruel and rarely rewarding experience. By introducing some of these principles, it is possible to show the true nature of all conflicts and also make something completely different from regular "space battle" principles. For example, compare DEFCON and your standard RTS.

1. Maneuverability. In the game that measures distances in realistic proportions, every classic attack with rocket, or laser, or some magic glowing weapon is too slow and short-handed, it is easy to avoid it just by running from it. It's not certain how movement system would change in the future of the game, but it won't be a easiest one to handle.

2. Vulnerability. One decently-placed nuke - and your craft is disassembling and completely loosing ability to fight, or move, or support life of the pilot. One glancing hit and you better run for it. Two fleets, if they're fighting each other, should always expect causalities on both sides, even if superiority of one side is obvious.

3. No fog of war. In the space, except celestial bodies, nothing obscures enemy's actions or intents, if you see someone approaching to you with big gun mounted on its hull, maybe it is best to avoid contact. If his reactor is charging his gun, giving off a lot of heat, maybe it's time to run (if you don't have a bigger gun).

4. The only possible reason to fight would be existing of the choke points, like infrastructure hubs, or assembly plants, that you have to protect. Like in Minecraft, invaders may destroy your bench, you furnace and a bed (spawning point) but only if they manage to find your hideout and the only consequence is that you have to build them from simplest of materials.

Will it work? Hardly you can say it is a combat system, rather, it's please-no-combat system, but that's the entire purpose of it, at least at first stage of development.

QuoteTunaOfSpace

I would personally be very interested in seeing that sort of class struggle—how the lawless contend with the lawful, the established wealthy vs. the aspiring vagabond.

Again, may I ask, is there a class struggle in creative-type game such as Starbound?

3. No fog of war. In the space, except celestial bodies, nothing obscures enemy's actions or intents, if you see someone approaching to you with big gun mounted on its hull, maybe it is best to avoid contact. If his reactor is charging his gun, giving off a lot of heat, maybe it's time to run (if you don't have a bigger gun).

Well, in a universe with hyperjumps, as SE's is, this isn't quite so. Lightspeed does obscure just about everything about your enemy's actions if they hyperjump, unless you go one step further from strict realism and postulate some technology to detect ships in hyperspace.

I was thinking about the way to prevent people from going for a war and I guess there is a way to do it without completely forbidding something like weapons and hostile contact. Most of the game developers that wish to balance these issues, usually apply less powerful weaponry and stronger defenses, making space battle more predictable and less punishing. That is because the people who played the game longer, should feel that they didn't do that in vain, and their ability to fight is improved to some extent, because that is one of the goals in-game.

On the other hand, if we don't like the idea of war itself, we should probably do the opposite - make war into a cruel and rarely rewarding experience. By introducing some of these principles, it is possible to show the true nature of all conflicts and also make something completely different from regular "space battle" principles. For example, compare DEFCON and your standard RTS.

I agree that combat shouldn't be a common or easy thing, but it will only be easy if you dumb-down the realism.

I would really like to see space combat that is completely different from the usual "airplanes and/or ships in space" of everything else sci-fi. As has been mentioned, real space combat would be something all its own. I personally, would enjoy combat that takes an hour or so of careful maneuvering and positioning to get ready for an attack that is then over in a few minutes. There are plenty of games for people that have no patience, space engine shouldn't sacrifice realism to satisfy the "trigger-happy kids".

(however, a robust combat autopilot system is a MUST, or nobody will hit ANYTHING. in fact, if you are looking for a way to prevent people from fighting, then don't put in a combat computer system, and instead make the player fly an intercept and fire their weapons by hand.... imagine stetting up an attack for an hour and then missing it completely when the enemy adjusts their orbit and gets away unscathed.... no one will go around killing people for fun if it is that hard)

Because of the speeds and distances involved, engagements would likely be most like submarine warfare.... long to set up, and over quickly, one way or the other. An attacker could see an unsuspecting target, fly by his target at close to the speed of light, and be almost undetectable until he was almost there, and almost gone by the time the enemy can react. Add warping to the mix and once again, no one will hit anybody unless they manage to completely ambush someone. (unless ships can fight while warped. Maybe a larger ship could de-stabilize the warp field of a smaller ship and cause it to be ripped apart??)

Ships sitting in close ranges and bombarding each other like 17th century ships-of-the-line looks cool but doesn't make any tactical sense. Neither does fighter-style turn-and-maneuver dog fighting. Since there is no air in space, you have to fire your engines to turn.... so it would be preferable to turn less. And with computer-guided gun-turrets or missiles, there is no need to "get on the enemy's tail".

PacificMaelstrom, I've read many sci-fi novels of different quality, and so far I can only remember two of them, fairly realistically displaying such type of space battle. Both of them, of course, involve some kind of "hyperspace" engine that allows them to slip out of regular space. Otherwise it's pretty much impossible to get to your enemy at engaging distance and get away with it. Of course, in both cases, it's highly-automated process of traveling with unimaginable speed and precision, leaving a pilot completely out of battle itself and placing him into position of strategist.

The first one that comes to mind is "Passage at Arms" by Glen Cook, which can be described as "Das Boot in space". Mostly, it is dedicated to description of people adapting to the reality of war, with lots and lots of logically arranged technical details, and how these details actually influence people. It's not very nice to readers, and has a whole lot of unsettling details, but we, as well as protagonist, can always take refuge in technical descriptions and thoughts about real outcome of the battle. Therefore it provides us with lot more details of everyday life of space pilot than, to say, Starship Troopers, and not leaning too much into politics.

"A Fire Upon the Deep" by Vernor Vinge isn't about space battles at all, and most of the time t takes place on the planets, but those battles in space that have been mentioned, are particularly well-described. There are less details and warfare itself, most of the devices have been replaced with standard sci-fi models, but what makes it notable is how these are implemented. Like trying to "synchronize" with enemy "skipping" movement in hyperspace, and fire a missile to intercept it at the moment it will come up from the jump, before it goes for another.

Also, there's a sequel that takes place in another "technology era" (in terms of the universe, it's different "zone of thought"), with ships that don't have FTL engines, defensive fields and all that. The only space battle mentioned here can be described as a meatgrinder, and even with serious handicap for one side leaves barely enough survivors to continue the mission.

Added (23.01.2014, 19:13)---------------------------------------------There's also "The Uplift" series by David Brin, which has a ton of starship battles, but those are mostly not realistic in any sense and involve a lot of improbable and even bizarre technology that doesn't satisfy basic definitions of "hard" sci-fi.

The universe is big, but habitat planets are not so common. By limiting the ability of hyperdrive, or the range of territories, there will certainly be chances to war.

I don't think Kessler effect is a very big problem to fleet, as we have the future guardian systems.

I'm thinking about resources or parameters now. A ship should have...

· Fuel for the little suns. Well, fuel of nuclear fusion. Maybe H, He or so. Mainly used in engines. And DEWs. And factories. And ecospheres. And radars. In a very hot or very cold place, a small amount of fuel should also be used to preserve the temperature of sensitive parts of the ship.

· Temperature of major functional parts. If temperature is too high for engine (and hyperdrive?), you will need to slow down or add a better heat panel. If temperature is too high or too low for living places, additional methods are needed. If these methods failed, passengers will be injured or even killed.

· G Force. If this value is high, additional methods are required to preserve the lives of passengers. If this value is too high, ship will be turned into a RC one. If this value is tooooo high, ships will be damaged or even destroyed.

· Integrity of mini ecosphere (for interstellar ships) and oxygen, foods and water(for all ships). If ecosystem is damaged or just simply lost the energy, passengers won't be active for long. Hibernation may be essential.

· Ages of passengers? Hibernation methods and relativistic effect should be considered... Don't know if it will be complex on mathematical models. "All to Hibernation" could be a button to lengthen the average remaining ages of passengers relative to UT.

To tell the truth I'm expecting the ship assembly part like Kerbal Space Program or Kinetic Void... It will be entertaining to see many weird ships players build in space...

Given the technology that would be available in the future, planets with life or capable of supporting life would not be necessary for colonization or settlement. You could create everything you need to survive by processing the resources of any world and turning them into construction materials, air, food, and whatever else you might need.

Ironic how my first post on these forums is going to be in relation to conflict... Guess that's just me. Anyway, please excuse me if whatever I say doesn't make sense.

The question whether there will be conflict or if there is the need for conflict can all be answered by answering a much simpler question; Will people make money off of it?

Will colonizing a dead, atmosphere-less world be more expensive than colonizing a terra? Will setting up a mining base on a rocky moon be harder than building the same base on a habitable world? Will certain people/corporations be able to focus on setting up a production process in such a way they can mass produce whatever weapons (accelerator guns, rockets, lasers, you get the idea) will be used? Will exploration cost money (for hyperdrive fuel or upkeep)?

If the answer is yes to even a single of these questions, then you can't get around the fact people will compete for things. If person A finds a terra full of resources, person B will also want that planet. Because for person B, it's easier and cheaper to just take over person A's planet than find his own terra with such abundance of resources, which would cost person B fuel, more money and time.

Or if someone can focus on the production and sale of weapons, he'll be making sure that there is a market. How do you make sure people want to buy your stuff? Make them need your stuff. When do you need weapons? In conflict.

Unless during development of the game, either of those events can be stopped, you'll most likely have conflict in the game. Though if colonizing a dead planet doesn't cost more than colonizing a terra, then there's no reason for conflict and that bit can be skipped entirely.